view_geometry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the Three.js viewport with orbit controls, EnergyPlus-consistent placement (zone origins, rotations, north axis), click-to-inspect and type/zone toggling, and the important limitation that unplaceable and simplified geometry types are omitted but listed in the payload and text summary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, followed by progressively finer detail. It runs a bit long, but each sentence (rendering target, interaction model, placement fidelity, omission caveat) carries distinct, non-redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the payload and text summary as surfaces for the omitted geometry. Combined with the rendering and interaction details, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter (color_by) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including its enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions toggling by type or zone but adds no meaning beyond the schema's enum description, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('interactive 3D building geometry'), then enumerates exactly what is rendered (surfaces, fenestration, shading). No sibling tool offers a 3D geometry viewer, so it is unambiguously distinguishable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied ('from the loaded model' establishes a prerequisite) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative for inspecting geometry non-visually, and no exclusion criteria. The agent can infer intent but must guess at routing versus siblings like get_zone_properties.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.